1. ' This application is filed on behalf of the judgment-debtors under Order XXI, Rule 2, C.P.C. With the prayer to certify satisfaction of the decree passed in Suit No,509 of 1994 under the State Bank of Pakistan Incentive Scheme. In support of the application, the judgment-debtors have filed copy of letter dated 23-12-1997 whereby the decree-holder had called upon the judgment-debtor No,1 to make payment of Rs,22,922,502,21 under the State Bank of Pakistan Incentive Scheme in full and final settlement of the subject liabilities. Such letter is, admittedly, signed by the Officer Incharge of the Advances and VicePresident/Chief Manager of the decree holder-bank. On 24-12-1997 i,e, the next day, the offer contained in the above-stated letter dated 23-12-1997 was accepted by judgment-debtor No,1 and was duly conveyed to the Chief Manager of the decree holder-bank.
2. The letter dated 24-12-1997 being pertinent, is reproduced hereunder:-- ' The Chief Manager, United Bank Limited, Corporate Circle, Karachi.
3. ' Sub: Settlement of liability under S.B.P. Incentive Scheme of Messrs Azmat Textile Mills Ltd. Central Loan Liability.
4. Dear Sir, ' Please refer to your Letter No,Corp/ADB/CDC/91 dated 23-12-1997. We are pleased to inform you that the amount payable by us under the above scheme as advised vide your above letter i,e, Rs,2,29,22,502.21 is acceptable to us.
5. ' We also hereby authorise you to kindly encash our Defence Certificate value of Rs,5 million on 13- 2-1998 for full seven years maturity and treat the proceeds as Down payment. We further confirm that the remaining balance will be paid by us on or before 15-2-1998.
6. ' Thanking you, Yours faithfully, (Sd.)"
7. ' The receipt of above letter is not denied by the decree holder. On 21-1-1998, on an application filed by the decree holder, it was allowed to encash the pledged Defence Saving Certificates in terms of the decree passed in Suit No,509 of 1994. The above referred Defence Saving Certificates, of the face value of Rs,5 million, were, however, encahsed by the decree holder on 13-2-1998 upon completion of seven years maturity and a sum of Rs,12,500,000 was credited to the account of judgment-debtor No, 1 . On 14-2-1998 the balance sum of Rs,10,422,502.21 was paid by the judgment-debtor No,1 to the decree holder through cheque which was duly encashed through clearing on 16-2-1998. Alongwith the cheque, a forwarding letter dated 14-2-1998 was also sent clearly mentioning therein that the above mentioned balance amount of Rs,10,422,502.21 was paid in full and final settlement of the decretal amount. The decree holder was further requested to issue suitable certificate for notifying satisfaction of decree before this Court.
8. ' The application is opposed by filing counter-affidavit of one Saleem Sadiq who claims to be Principal Officer and Attorney of the decree holder-bank. Mr. Nafees Siddiqui, Advocate for the decree holder has urged that the offer contained in letter dated 23-12-1997 had been procured by the judgment-debtors in collusion with officers of the decree-holder bank in order to deprive the bank from the decretal amount which is stated to be Rs,99,681,865. It is further urged that the decree holder-bank has already filed complaint for prosecution of the officers who had signed the letter dated 23-12-1997, the deponent of counter-affidavit and the judgment-debtor No,1 alleging therein that the decree-holder bank has been defrauded as a result of above-referred collusive acts of the accused. The learned counsel, for such reason, has requested that the counter-affidavit filed by the above-named Saleem Sadiq may not be looked into and permission be accorded for filing substituted counter-affidavit. To support his request, made through oral motion, the learned counsel has referred to the averments contained in para. 13 of the counter-affidavit which are as follows:-- "That the letter on which they are relying in the present application is the letter which is unauthorised and the same is under investigation of the decree-holder and the decree-holder reserves the right to institute any further proceedings including those of criminal investigation by which the judgment-debtor/Defendants .Have obtained this letter from the branch which is not authorised by the Decree Holder."
9. ' The learned counsel in response to query made by me, however, has not been able to pink point the date when the alleged fraud came to the notice of the decree holder. The request made by Mr. Nafees Siddiqui, Advocate for grant of time is opposed by the learned counsel for the judgment- debtors who has pointed out that after filing the counter-affidavit and the affidavit-in-rejoinder no further affidavit can be filed except with the leave of the Court. The affidavits in relation to interlocutory proceedings are filed under Rules 74 et seq of Sindh Chief Court Rules (OS) and under Rule 75(4) further affidavit cannot be filed after affidavit-in-rejoinder has been submitted. The time for filing counter-affidavit and affidavit-in-rejoinder was specifically fixed by order dated 28-4- 1998 and by virtue of Rule 71 of Sindh Chief Court Rules (OS), any affidavit if filed beyond such time, cannot be used except by leave of the Court obtained on an application made in that behalf. The decree holder has failed to file any application in terms of the above and I do not find any justification, even otherwise, for grant of oral motion made by Mr. Nafees Siddiqui for grant of time.
10. ' Faced with the situation, Mr. Nafees Siddiqui has argued that the settlement offered to the judgment-debtor No,1 through letter dated 23-12-1997 was unauthorised and beyond the purview of the scheme notified by the State Bank of Pakistan. It is contended on behalf of the decree holder-bank that the State Bank of Pakistan Incentive Scheme was initially notified under Circular No,19, dated 5th June, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as State Bank of Pakistan Incentive Scheme). For availing the benefit of the Scheme, a party was required to approach the concerned bank within one month of the issuance of the said Circular. The dates for making initial payment and the balance payment for settlement were subsequently notified by the State Bank of Pakistan. Such dates were later on extended and finally through B.P.R.D. Circular No,57, dated 8th December, 1997, it was notified that the defaulters who pay 30% of the agreed amount of liabilities by 15th December, 1997 and pay the remaining balance upto 16th February, 1998 would be entitled to the benefits of the State Bank of Pakistan Incentive Scheme.
11. ' On the basis of the above, it is urged that the judgment-debtors had failed to pay 30% of the amount mentioned in letter dated 23-12-1997, and therefore, the benefit of the State Bank of Pakistan Incentive Scheme could not be extended to the judgment-debtors.
12. The terms of the State Bank of Pakistan Incentive Scheme show that it did not require deposit of any down payments and the time for approaching the lending bank had, admittedly, been extended from time to time. This being so, in my view, the time limit was not considered of essence for the purpose of availing benefits under the said Scheme. As regards the requirement of initial deposit, evidently, such was not the requirement of the S.B.P. Scheme initially hence could not be introduced subsequently as a mandatory term for availing benefits thereunder. For such view, I am supported by the principle laid down in the cases of Ch. Altaf Hussain and others v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner Pakistan, Lahore and others PLD 1965 SC 68 and Mst. Hussain Bibi v. Haji Muhammad Din and 3 others 1976 SCM R 208. The decree holder, in the present case, has, admittedly, received the sum of Rs,22,922,502,21 towards the account of judgment-debtor No,1 which was specifically notified as payment in full and final settlement of the subject liabilities. In the circumstances, the decree-holder was required to apply the payment towards discharge of the liability notified by the judgment-debtors by virtue of the principle contained in section 59 of the Contract Act. It is pertinent to note that the decree holder has failed to notify anything to the contrary in this behalf to the judgment-debtors either. The averments contained in the above- quoted paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit, too, cannot give any different right to the decree holder who had merely reserved the right to institute further proceedings including criminal prosecution. The decree-holder bank, in the event of any fraud having been committed upon it, may sue its own Officers for damages or continue criminal proceedings as may be available to it under the law. The judgment-debtors having accepted the offer and acted thereon can not be denied benefits under the S.B.P. Incentive Scheme. The doctrine of indoor management affords complete protection to the judgment-debtors against the irregularity, if any, committed by the officers of the decree-holder bank. The judgment-debtors have sufficiently established that the payment of Rs,22,922,502.21 was made in full and final settlement of the decretal amount and are entitled to such payment being recorded and certified as full and final satisfaction of the decree.
13. The application is granted in the above terms. Resultantly, the execution application too, stands disposed of.